Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did a nuke go off in Iraq?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:22 AM
Original message
Did a nuke go off in Iraq?
I know there have been discussions about this but I just now saw the video for the first time. There are some interesting comments posted at the link.

So watch this and let me know what you think. Is this a nuke?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps0v1bIFup4
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. Uhhh. No.
A nuke has very specific features.

VERY bright, blinding flash
Bright fireball rises forming mushroom cloud
Extreme shock wave causing destruction over large area

I don't see any of those things in this film.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slaveplanet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
17. did you let
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 10:00 AM by slaveplanet
this video play long enough?, I'm not sure if this is the same video I saw last week, but the one I saw, you have to keep watching for 4 minutes or so.

In it, I saw...

VERY bright, blinding flash..... check, present
Bright fireball rises forming mushroom cloud..... check, present
Extreme shock wave causing destruction over large area...... apparently, missing...but it appears the footage is at night and over ten miles away. And... of course when you say destruction over a large area, you'd be referring to the strategic Nuke, as opposed to a tactical nuke, the latter being much , much smaller, in yield, weight, and size...and it wouldn't cause mass damage over an immense area, but it would leave lots of invisible radiation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. mushroom cloud does not equal nuke
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slaveplanet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. yes, I know
that, but there is clearly a blinding explosion, and what appears to be a mushroom cloud none the less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharp_stick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
2. I don't think so
I can't see the video, streaming video sites are blocked at work (coffee break time). Likely though if it was a US explosion it could be one of the massive air burst bombs like the massive ordinance air burst (MOAB) or a daisy cutter.

A nuke would be spotted by other countries pretty quickly and you can bet that a lot of them would let that go to the media in a second.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jdadd Donating Member (950 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
3. I doubt it's a nuke....
I dont think a fire could trigger a nuke
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
4. Doesn't look like it to me...
And how do we know this is Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
5. uh...why would you think that's a nuke?
Might as well ask if an antimatter bomb went off...there'd be as much evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
6. When a chemical plant blew outside of Louisville Ky it formed
a mushroom cloud. I remember it glowed orange.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. we had a fertilizer plant blow up here about 30 or so years ago
and it shook the ground for miles around. it was at night so I didn't get to see what it looked like but my having been home from the service only a couple years it really startled me and for a moment I was right back in VN, so strange
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #9
29. This was at night, and the fires illuminated the cloud
I bet those boom box cars set you off too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
7. I don't think so.
A nuke requires a very specific trigger to set it off.

No way any are they lying around "weaponized" and ready to detonate.

But something large happened there. Even with the propensity of lens (camera) magnification and distortion, that was big.

I refuse to believe that there was not a large number of casualties in that Falcon thing.

Those fuckers don't go straight up - they go out at every angle imaginable and then start twisting around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
8. Nukes don't go off in fires.
Their explosives may explode, but not at the same time. And the explosive used inside a nuke are quite small compared to a conventional bomb, so again it would produce a little bang. No bigger than a mortar round, especially a tactical nuke. In addition there would be reports of radiation sickness in Baghdad and the base, but as of yet it has not happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. have to keep in mind that it maybe hasn't been reported yet
I doubt there was a nuclear explosion as the damage isn't conducive with one but I do know I can't trust this group of thugs in the whitehouse to ever tell me the truth, they haven't yet and not likely to in the future. just saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Well, I agree you shouldn't trust them...
but at the same time you have to wonder if we should trust the people who posted that video. They may mean well or ill toward our people. Quite frankly we have no clue. It is the internet after all.

But I know how nuclear weapons work, and that isn't the way they work. The explosives in the bomb must be detonated at the exact same moment, a fire wouldn't probably do that because though to us it may appear uniformly hot, any variation in temperature would change the rate at which the explosives detonate.

If there isn't a uniform detonation, the shock wave which compresses the uranium at the center of the nuke will not compress it but basically shoot it out one side of the bomb. It is actually quite interesting how all this works.

But back to the fire, that is not a nuclear weapon. I can say it with certainty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #13
27. Correct. Fire will never detonate a nuke.
Minor correction. We don't use uranium bombs. We only used 1 over Nagasaki. They are much "simpler" a design (uranium gun), but much more expensive because of the quantity of uranium needed for critical mass.

The cores of modern bombs are plutonium, and you are 100% correct in that you have to implode the plutonium in a perfect sphere to cause a chain reaction that we know of as a nuclear bomb.

This is why terrorists getting plutonium doesn't scare me. They honestly wouldn't know how to use it. When plutonium, and even uranium go into chain-reaction, they blow themselves apart at dynamite strength (which is why nuclear power plants can't explode). To get that "perfect" implosing requires a lot of technical knowledge in multiple fields.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #8
25. There's a good chance that not even the explosives would detonate
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 10:28 AM by jmowreader
The explosives the military uses need two things to go off: heat and pressure. Just heat doesn't do it; set explosive like C-4 or Composition B on fire, and you get a raging fire--but unless you also apply an impact to the explosive, it won't detonate.

You may have heard of "C-4 Coffee." What guys would do during Vietnam is to draw an extra Claymore mine when they were getting ready to go out on patrol, cut it open, and take out little globs of the C-4 plastic explosive that's in it. Dig a hole so you don't burn the jungle down, put the C-4 glob in it, set it on fire and you've got a nice little heater for your coffee, C-rations or whatever else you might want to eat or drink. As long as you don't try to extinguish it by stomping on it--which sometimes happened--it was reasonably safe. (This is also why the Army started issuing Trioxane heat tablets--claymores are too expensive to be used as camp fuel. And "safety" is kinda relative when you consider that the whole reason those guys were in the woods in the first place was to try to kill armed men who were in the woods for the same reason.)

If you were to set a nuclear weapon on fire you'd have a big fire and lots of radioactivity in the area, but probably no explosion--and DEFINITELY no nuclear explosion.

On edit: I tried googling for "C-4 Coffee." Some sick bastard in New Zealand has named his coffee company that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
10. It looks like a large explosion made to look worse by night exposure...
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 09:38 AM by Kingshakabobo
I'm by no means a camera expert but it appears the street lights are unusually bright due to the camera settings. Not "night-vision" but definitely a more sensitive setting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #10
23. I think it's night vision too.
Maybe only enhancement but the video looks just like looking through the night vision devices we had in the Army. They flash out exactly like that when there is a bright light.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. Yes, probably an infrared sensitive camera
So it would detect a hot explosive flash better than our own eyes or a normal camera.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
12. Occam's Razor says it's Camp Falcon exploding, not a nuke exploding
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 09:47 AM by Selatius
Either somebody dropped a tactical nuke and the entire world press, even the more critical European press, is burying the story in some grand conspiracy and the after-effects such as mass radiation sickness from fallout.

Or somebody who doesn't know what a tactical nuke exploding looks like assumes a mushroom cloud = a nuke exploding when he titled the video.

At any rate, I vote for the uploader being ignorant about the after-effects of nuclear detonations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
14. no
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
15. What I wonder is what is the thing flying through the air right after
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 09:53 AM by madokie
the big explosion. It looks like the camera is more than a mile from the explosion so what ever it is it is very large like a building maybe??? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
16. Casualties
What I want to know are the casualty figures.

Looking at that ferocious fire, and knowing that there were hundreds of US personnel at Camp Falcon, the official "no reported casualties" does not seem credible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. do you know the details of the layout of Camp Falcon?
Why does it not seem credible. Its a large facility. The destruction was limited to confined area. Reports immediately after the fire started indicated that personnel were ordered to move to hardened, secure facilities.

It didn't all blow up at once. It burned over a two day period with explosions throughout.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jose Diablo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #16
30. FWIW, here is a account that says 300
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/106318

"Over 300 American troops, including U.S. Army and Marines, CIA agents, U.S. translators and contractors were killed or injured outright or died immediately afterwards en route to hospital or in hospital and over 125 seriously injured, requiring major medical attention and 39 suffering lesser injuries By accounts, charred and totally unrecognizable fragments of personnel were scattered over an eight block area."

But like I said, it may not be true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. Photo of Camp Falcon from that site:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
18. What is the date and time this happenned? Youtube needs to post dates!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Well, it did look like a nuke in the middle of the blaze.
Is the military getting so frustrated that they are upping the ammunitions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
24. No. Any sufficiently large explosion will form a mushroom cloud.
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 10:20 AM by dicksteele
And that was a sufficiently large explosion.


And, on edit: We don't store nukes in ammo dumps,
and even if we did, they don't go critical from fires
or external explosions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
One_Life_To_Give Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
28. Won't a NUKE Fireball Blind people at only 10 miles?
My recollection is that looking at a Nukes fireball can cause permanent blindness. I don't recall there being any "Safe" distance from which it can be observed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
One_Life_To_Give Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. Blind Girl 120 miles away witnessed first atomic blast
Did some checking on the effects of that bright flash. And while I am not sure about blinding someone at ten miles. I did find a report on testing of the first bomb in the desert. And the quote about it being seen by a blind girl 120 miles away.

At ten miles if you witnessed such a bright light. There would be no doubt inyour mind that this was not any conventional explosion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
31. Iraq is a testing zone for Military and there is lots of
experimenting going on... Whats got to be frustrating for Bush & company is that even with Nuclear weapons they still can't stop the insurgents.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boolean Donating Member (992 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
33. LOL! Are you kidding?!?!
You call that a nuke?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

If that's a nuke, it's the most pathetic little nuke I ever did see. I notice the city is still standing afterwards!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sir Jeffrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
34. A nuke would have leveled Baghdad...
It was not a nuke. Just a sh-tload of ammunition exploding...maybe some chemical weapons like white phosphorous. Today's nukes are much stronger than the two we dropped on Japan. You would know if a nuke went off in downtown Baghdad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trudyco Donating Member (975 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
35. I wonder what depleted uranium would do in an explosion -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 02nd 2014, 06:08 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC